Being a good relative: Indigenous doulas reclaiming cultural knowledge to improve health and birth outcomes in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women are increasingly returning to culturally based birthing practices to assert their sovereignty over their bodies and their birthing experience generally.The impact of colonization on birthing experiences for First Nations women in Canada has been profound and extends into generations of families.First Nations women across Canada have traditionally birthed in their communities surrounded by families and community, observing many traditions around pregnancy and birthing including placenta burying and belly button ceremonies.These traditions and this circle of care and support resulted in resiliency, strength and a connection to the land and family.In Manitoba, Indigenous women are becoming trained and engaged in supporting their fellow Indigenous relatives and community members as Indigenous doulas or birth workers.This paper describes the experiences of the first cohort of Indigenous doulas trained in Winnipeg, Manitoba by the Manitoba Indigenous Doula Initiative (MIDI), also known as Wiijii'idiwag Ikwewag, and describes the specific contributions and impacts of Indigenous doulas who support Indigenous women during pregnancy and birth.Through qualitative interviews, our participants described various understandings of their work, purpose and their impacts on the women and families they support.Four recurring themes which emerged across the interviews included: prior negative birthing experiences, clashes with mainstream health and social services, the understanding of doulas as advocates, and empowerment and disempowerment.These themes all spoke to ongoing challenges Indigenous women continue to face during their pregnancies and births in mainstream healthcare systems, as well as highlighting the key forms of support that doulas can provide to ensure the self-determination and well-being of the women they work with.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".